‘I DIDN’T DEFAME YOU,’ BOBRISKY REPLIES LETTER FROM FALANA, FALZ

Earlier reports stated that Mr Falana and his son issued a 12-hour ultimatum to Bobrisky to apologise and retract his defamatory claim in a cease-and-desist letter on Monday.

The letter, issued through the law firm Falana and Falana’s Chambers and signed by Olorunfemi Akinyemi and Taiwo E. Olawanle, warned that the crossdresser’s failure to comply with the demands would lead to legal action.

In September, this newspaper reported that Bobrisky, in an audio leaked by social media influencer Martins ‘VDM’ Otse, alleged that Mr Falana and Falz approached him to secure a presidential pardon for N10 million.

Bobrisky reportedly alleged that Falz contacted him on behalf of his father to arrange the pardon.

However, in a subsequent audio VDM leaked in October, the crossdresser alleged that his godfather paid N5 million to an unnamed Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) to secure the pardon.

Bobrisky did not mention Falz and his father in the second audio in which he alleged that the SAN submitted the pardon request to President Bola Tinubu on his behalf.

Meanwhile, in response to Mr Falana and his son’s cease-and-desist letter, Bobrisky, in a series of posts on his Instagram story on Wednesday night, denied defaming Falana and his son.

He also denied paying them (Mr Falana and Falz) N10 million to secure a presidential pardon during his six-month imprisonment at Kirikiri Correctional Centre in Lagos.

“In reply to the two letters in circulation from the law firm of the Falanas,” he wrote, adding that “pending the official reply from my counsel…I Okuneye Idris Olanrewaju aka Bobrisky did not publish any defamatory statement or statements concerning the learned SAN (Falana) and his son, Falz.”

He continued, “And that it is in the public domain pursuant to my solicitor’s letter dated the 27th day of September 2024 that I have denied any knowledge of what VDM published.”

The crossdresser said he stands by his earlier denial of any link with the controversial audio recordings, adding that whoever felt defamed by them should hold the publisher responsible.

“I stand by my express denial and put the matter to strict proof and advise that whoever has been defamed should hold the publisher of the defamatory content and my fundamental rights to privacy of my communications should be respected and protected.”

He again denied giving Mr Falana and his son money, adding, “The person that published an audio online should take full responsibility for what he posted in public.”